In reply to Deadeye:
> Hahahaha. I think NASA probably know more about this and their design constraints than you! Armchair rocket science expert too, eh?
My comment is based on something Alan Bond said about their work in the UK on re-entery profiles 40 years ago; nobody in the states believed them then but they claim now to have had it extensively validated in simulation by Airbus. I’ve been looking for the interview with him to post a link but haven’t found it yet.
The Americans are now all about Alan Bond and co’s work now it’s apparent they can’t crack controllable hypersonic engines and the UK can. It’s disappointing to me that it’s taken the US to progress the reaction engines Skylon project but my childhood dream of seeing a British air breathing space plane is at least limping on with some stars and stripes on it.
Happy to be an armchair critic of the space shuttle. 20x more expensive than the alternatives and something like 10x the fatality rate. It’s clear that a series of very bad design choices led to something so far from the right path. Aside from Alan Bond’s claims, it’s 25 years since the McDonnel Douglass DC-X demonstrated the potential of VTVL rocketry.
PS I do actually do some rocket science; more on the theoretical side until technology catches up though. It’s a toy side project but everyone needs a hobby and it’s cool to talk interstellar rocketry with a senior NASA person.
Post edited at 09:34